Figured it was another Jeb Bush thread.
Posted on 04/06/2015 12:35:58 PM PDT by Teacher317
I'm not exactly a Biblical scholar, so be a little gentle with the flames.
I was watching Passion of the Christ yesterday for Easter (my third time seeing it), and a thought occurred to me. Both the movie and the Gospels note that Pilate tried, repeatedly, to not sentence Jesus to death. His wife lobbied for Jesus, he declared "this man has done nothing", he sent him to Herod declaring him not guilty, and he even tried the once-a-year prisoner release gambit. At every turn, the high priests and the crowd pushed for his death. Even after finding him guilty of something (Jesus DID try to talk two tax collectors out of their jobs, and he DID admit to being the King of Hosts... with the exact phrasing depending on your Bible version), he only sentenced him to punishment, not death (and yet Jesus got viciously tortured... again, against Pilates orders).
So... here's my question for the many religious historians and "experts" on FR that I have some respect for...
Why is it that we have, every week for 2000 years, called out Pilate by name in the Apostle's Creed. Caiaphas is the one, by most accounts, who pushed the most for Jesus to be tortured and killed. The high priests pushed the crowds to act up if they did not get their way. The Romans just wanted to avoid yet another riot and civil unrest, and Pilate (according to the movie) was already on notice about allowing any more uprisings.
In the end, Pilate tells the crowd "you do it, I won't. The blood of the Son of God is not on my hands", and he famously washes his hands. He did his best to find other ways out, he did his best to avoid many people being killed in the riots, and he recognized, repeatedly, that Jesus was innocent. His only crime was to EVENTUALLY wear down and give in to the crowd to avoid many more than one "man" being killed. For a Roman soldier with political responsibilities, with no reason to have any faith in this latest prophet, he did a good job overall of trying to minimize the damage to himself, to the crowd, to Rome, and to the region. I cannot say that I could or would have done any better. (although every Christian will want to jump up and say "Well *I* would have stood up for Him!!!"... which is almost surely malarkey. Pilate didn't KNOW, and neither would you have known.)
So, again... why do we weekly pour out scorn for Pilate's name, for millenia, and not Caiaphas?
Yup, I mentioned that in post # 48.
Pilate didn’t have no power to condemn Jesus to death unless it had been given it to him from above.
Yes, that maybe true, but hindsight is 20/20.
The over all picture is that, that was all in God’s plan to redeem us, besides Jesus rose from the dead 3 days later, death could not hold him down.
Figured it was another Jeb Bush thread.
I’ve wondered lately whether the tipping point for Caiaphas that sealed his determination to have Jesus executed came when Jesus invaded the Temple grounds & upset the moneychangers’ tables & drove out the livestock merchants while charging, “My house is a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves!”
Think of it, Jesus hit Caiaphas where it hurt, in the pocketbook. Those changing money & selling sacrificial animals no doubt had to to pony up some serious dough for the privilege of doing so within the Temple complex & that surely meant that Caiaphas & his cronies got their cut.
Yes, people could buy elsewhere but once inside the Temple environs they were a captive market & besides the high priests had probably forbidden foreign money transactions anywhere else.
So...even in ancient Jerusalem, just follow the money. Thoughts?
I would think after the third or fourth miracle ya gotta be amazed. Or at least become his agent and book him in Vegas.
Yep. Psalms 22 describes the event 1000 years before it happened.
Plausible theory.
I have heard two reason for the mention of Pilate’s name in the creed, and while Pilate isn’t a hero in the story, his presence in the creed isn’t necessarily one of “scorn” as you put it.
1. Pilate was a known secular ruler. Mentioning Jesus as being contemporary with him—in fact having met him and dealt with him in a trial—verifies the historicity of Jesus. (If some tried to deny that he was a real, corporeal person.)
2. Pilate’s position as the representative of the most powerful earthly authority at the time shows that even HE is subject to the Sovereign will of Almighty God, and that Jesus’ suffering and resurrection was not in the hand of a mere man, but of God. Pilate’s sovereignty did not exceed God’s.
As an aside, this second lesson is profound for me. I am learning daily that my plans, the world’s plans, and the plans of any mortal—I don’t care if you’re the Queen of England or a Nigerian Prince—are never fulfilled unless God permits.
We are free, but we are not autonomous. God is King.
Hope this helps.
Tourist trap set up, last place to buy.
That little event ‘convicted’ millions. Remember the idiots celebrating “Let’s do the Schiavo”? Fun times for them.
“that was all in God’s plan to redeem us, besides Jesus rose from the dead 3 days later, death could not hold him down.”
Amen
“But my question has always been why they did not believe he was the messiah?”
Why do you assume they didn’t know He was the Messiah? Jesus indicated they knew exactly who He was in the parable of the tenants and landlord: The tenants beat the servant sent to collect the rents (comparable to the treatment of some of the prophets), and when the landowner sends his son it is because he thinks they wouldn’t dare treat him disrespectfully. The tenants, on the other hand, view him as the heir to the lands and kill him fully knowing who he was. They knew He was the Messiah, and rejected Him with extreme prejudice.
People today want to cloud this whole issue because the truth is uncomfortable.
“Except that Pilate WAS guilty of this Man’s blood.”
Equally guilty...
I don't see this line as "pouring out scorn" at all.
The whole purpose of the Nicene Creed was to make a definitive statement about Jesus Christ as both Man and God. I have always understood the line in the Creed about Pontius Pilate to be a statement to reinforce the historical truth of Christ's death by crucifixion under Roman law.
Remember that the Council of Nicaea was convened in 325 AD by the emperor Constantine I to resolve disputes that were threatening the cohesiveness of the Roman Empire. So a statement about the historical truth of Christ's death at the hands of a Roman leader would have lent strong credibility to Constantine's efforts.
I totally agree. A historical theme that a lot of people seem to overlook in the New Testament is that the Romans were very sensitive about crowd riots. Unfortunately, in that day and age it seemed that stability and order trumped the value of an innocent life that was Jesus. In the Book of Acts, in Chapter 19 verse 40; the town clerk in Ephesus in Asia Minor was worried about the mob that had taking over the theater and having to answer to the authorities when no excuse could be given for the uproar of the mob.
Crowd control and order was a sensitive issue to the Romans.
I’m sure you’re right about the placement of guilt. But I am not guilty of doubt on this point. The central focus of Christianity is Christ’s willing acceptance of complete self-sacrifice to save the world. That would necessarily include the divine arrangements for betrayal, trial, torture, and crucifixion. Which is to say Jesus would have to meet all these players in the hereafter and bless them for the parts they were given to permit His sacrifice to occur. I suspect he was more forgiving than any of us are here on earth.
Somebody had to fulfill scripture. It happened to be Pilate. He had the authority to carry out a death sentence and if Christ isn’t put to death, he can’t ascend to Heaven. It fulfills scripture.
"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."
Although it does look like both Caiaphas and Pilate did know that He was not guilty of a capital crime.
I wouldn’t describe the creeds (Apostles’ and Nicene) as “pouring out scorn” on Pilate. It’s just situating Jesus in history.
Among some eastern Christians, Pilate is believed to have been repentant, and is called a saint.
At the time of the gospels, Jews and Christians had no developed philosophical vocabulary for talking about free will. The result is, to our ears, what sounds like fatalism. E.g., as the gospel writers express it, Jesus preaches in parables in order to CAUSE people not to understand what he is saying.
Judas, Caiaphas, etc., were not automatons merely because their actions were prophesied. They acted freely, and were blameworthy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.